Private purpose Trusts add to 3 certainites - lec 5 Flashcards Preview

From Flashcardlet - EQUITY AND TRUSTS > Private purpose Trusts add to 3 certainites - lec 5 > Flashcards

Flashcards in Private purpose Trusts add to 3 certainites - lec 5 Deck (30)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

what is the general purpose?

A

General Rule – Purpose trusts are not allowed in English law:

Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804) 9 Ves 399:

‘Every trust must have a definite object. There must be somebody in who favour the court can decree performance…[‘the beneficiary principle’]…

2
Q

what about purpose trusts?

A

Law relating to private prupose trusts- - james 2007 private purpose trust – genral rule enlighs law pt are allowed

3
Q

moreice case?

A

someone who can enforce trust – sue & compel tustees to perform terms of trust- now

4
Q

Exceptions to the Beneficiary Principle?

A

Now to this ben principle 3 notable exceptions have becomes established in English trust law

5
Q

what are the 3 exceptions?

A

(i) Charitable Trusts (see later)
(ii) Re Denley Type Private Purpose Trusts
(iii) Anomalous Exceptional Testamentary Purpose Trusts. - james article

6
Q

1st in other words?

A

1st – chartiable trust – where the purpose of trust sif ro122 or more of list excepted charibtable purpose as set out in s.3 of the charities act 2011-

7
Q

1st example?

A

for example relief of pov – advance of education, advance of religion- so gove half million trustes to relief poverty amongst single moth living in westmidlands area – the trutes will be vested legal title of that money and they will be under fid equitable duty to apply that money for that purpose- a cpt is a wakling, like all purpose trust theres no equitable title- to money- so sort of half baked trust in that sense- legal title with trustees and under equ obligation a fidicury obl to apply money for purpose in hand as stated , if falls in list of charitable purposes- registered when with carit commison and ctrustess must apply money approp under commission completes trustees carry out investing etc and attorney general – can bring enforcement against charitable trustees- so there is enforce – ut is no eq title to and no ben as such to people benefifitng from that cp the object sof that trust- are nor like objects fixed discretionary trusts – bene with eq title some sort- the objects and charitable trusts are people who purpose single moms in bham

8
Q

more on 1st example?

A

So cpt is valdi from of trust – si no eq title- no ben- in this sense half baked trust- but still valid trust and can be enforced by the charity cmmision or attorney genral – so is abig acception to the beneficiary rule- but still valid form of trust. That’s exception no.1. c trist due course

9
Q

Re Denleys Trust Deed [1969] 1 Ch.373

A

Charles Denley transferred land to trustees to be maintained and used as a sports field for the employees of a company.

10
Q

denley in depth?

A

Charles denly – transferred land he ownerd ro trusees- read as written – for 21 yrs – q wwas was a valid trust estabslihed- couldn’t be chartable trust even though promioting sport athletics is cp –

b with chartable trust also have to show proper cross sectional public benefit- here no public benefit bc the employees were closed group or closed class of people

– section public- closed group of people all working for one employer company so couldn’t be charitable no insufficient public benefit , benefit private class of people- legal title of land were to go trustees and to make available – ath – private group of people

11
Q

what did goff j say?

A

Goff J held: Although the trust was expressed as for a purpose it was in fact for the benefit of individuals (employees) because they would benefit directly or indirectly from the carrying out of the purpose, it was therefore outside the mischief of the beneficiary principle.

HE SAID TRUST VALID

12
Q

why was the trust also valid?

A

Also the trust was valid because:

(a) there were ‘enforcers’ i.e the employees could take legal action to enforce the trust and hold the trustees to their duties;

13
Q

valid because in other words?

A

He said also valid bc he said didn’t much need beneficaires I snse of having eq title. He could have private oruose trust here were there is clear group of people who could be enforcers – need someone who can enforce, don’t necc need eq title, we need enfrcers- someone who has suffienct int potentiallty in form of trust –

14
Q

other words 2?

A

if not performed or performed badlt, trustees can be held on account- so here if trustees have free hold title to land not on ladn register but got padlock on gate running trak wont make avail to employee- and one could in theory- potential to issue summons and breac of trust tog et adlcok off and run to – to enforcer terms of trust

15
Q

prof hayton say?

A

Prof Hayton: ‘…as a car needs an engine… [to be valid]…a trust needs an enforcer…’

16
Q

hayton in other words?

A

So Hayton said- read as written0 trust ned enforcer- make trustees get on with it
Such ptp can be uphelf if group of people who could potentially enforce trust- so don’t need ben but if haven’t not fatal- LKEY THING IS TEHRE SOMEONE WHO CAN EBNFIT FORM THAT PURPOSE. – so car needs engine- need someone whos and enforcer look at re Lipinski.

17
Q

what case must we see this in?

A

See also Re Lipinski WT [1976] Ch 235.

18
Q

also valid b in other words?

A

b) People die purpose lasts forever- so should that fund money but tied up forever- ppt can be held forever- rule against perptitieus – cahritb- forever bc everyone likes charities

19
Q

what did b actually say?

A

(b) the trust (not being charitable) was bound by the Rule against Perpetuities. The legally required ‘shelf life’ for trusts is a life in being plus 21 years. Here there was no life in being (no human beneficiaries) but by the deed the trust was nonetheless expressly limited to last for only 21 years.
It was therefore valid.

20
Q

what about other trusts?

A

Other trusts- private trust generally rule against pep – rule against – re denty if land transferred to trustees- trust will fail bc yes theres enforcers but trust doesn’t have shelf life – land tied up like that forevr – prupose last forever – so it creates perp- rule of economics- not good for economy for land to be tied up on trust 4 ever- or any prop – needs to be doing things- cannot leave forerver-

21
Q

what did re denley also say?

A

re denely said weren forevr lim to shelf life 21 yrs in re denely trust deed – so purpose had sheld life in re denley- pep period used to be- whats tiem measure- lfie in being human life plus 21 years- and if no human life you’ve appointed ur trust deed to calculate period justr simply period 21 years or less- need to specify shelf life… had self life- another reason why private prupose trust upheld.

22
Q

further on re denly?

A

Further, Re Denley – Type Private Purpose Trusts will be valid only insofar as the purpose is not:
Illegal;
Immoral;
Capricious/Useless;-Capricous – silly stupid trusts- see article sent – so million pound –mood pie comp= stupid unlees somehow sayc haritabe but rpobs nor
Uncertain;
Class of ‘beneficiaries/enforcers’ must not be administratively unworkable.

23
Q

what are the cases?

A
  • M’Craig v University of Glasgow [1907] SC 231 (trust to erect statutes of T and ‘artistic towers’ on his estates set aside)
  • M’Craig’s Trustees v Kirk Session Of United Free Church of Lismore [1915] SC 426 (trust to erect bronze statutes of T’s parents and their children was void, ‘sheer waste of money’)

-Brown v Burdett (1882) 21 Ch D 667
(Trust to block up windows of house for 21 years void).

24
Q

Anomalous Testamentary Private Purpose Trusts? -exception 3? and casses

A

(i) Trusts for the Care of Particular Animal(s)
- Pettingall v Pettingall (1842) 11 LJ Ch 176 (gift on trust by T of £50 p/a for upkeep of black mare (horse) upheld.
- Mitford v Reynolds (1848) 16 Sim 105 ( a gift on trust for upkeep of T’s horses upheld)
- Re Dean (gift of £750 p/a on trust to maintain horses and hounds for 50 years upheld).

25
Q

-another anamolous test for private purpsoe trusts? and cases?

A

(ii) Trusts for Maintenance of Specific Graves, Tombs and Monuments
- Mitford v Reynolds (1848) (gift on trust for purpose of erection of a monument was upheld).
- Pirbright v Sawley [1896] (gift of £800 for upkeep of burial enclosure of a child in church year ‘as long as the law permitted’ upheld for 21 years from T’s death).

26
Q

-more cases for anamolus ?

A
  • Re Hooper [1932] 1 Ch.38 (T left £1,000 to executors to use income for upkeep of various family graves and monuments ‘for long as they can legally do so’ Gift upheld for 21 years following T’s death).
  • Mussett v Bingle [1876] WN 170 (T gave £300 for erection of a monument and £200 to provide income for its upkeep. Court severed gift, first part valid, second part violated perpetuity rule therefore void).
27
Q

-what about 3 for anamoulous?

A

(iii) Saying Masses for the Dead
- Bourne v Keane [1919] HL (trust so as to pay for saying of a private mass valid, subject to perpetuity rule).
- Re Hetherington [1990] Ch1 (trust so as to pay for masses said in public charitable).
- Re Khoo Cheng Teow [1932] Straits Sett LR 226 (Sin Chew – Ancestor Worship gift upheld)

28
Q

Perpetuity Rule/Rule Against Perpetual Trusts?

A

Such Private Purpose Trusts must not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities i.e not go on indefinitely. Such trusts must have an express shelf life, of a 21 years or less.

Gotta be limited to 21 years or less- case re dean – position is such trust validf as long perp period.

29
Q
  • what about trusts for main tombs, animals and masses ?
A

Trusts for maintenance of Tombs Monuments, animals and masses etc are Imperfect Obligation Trusts i.e no-one exists who can enforce. All other types of trusts are of ‘perfect obligation’ i.e have an ‘enforcer’.

30
Q

article for this??

A

J.Brown : ‘What are we to do about Testamentary Trusts of Imperfect Obligation?’ Conv. [2007].